subject:"The missing perceiver in materialism and artificial intelligence and how to implement it"

Re: The missing perceiver in materialism and artificial intelligence and how to implement it

2013-06-17 Thread meekerdb

On 6/17/2013 1:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 16 Jun 2013, at 19:20, meekerdb wrote:

On 6/16/2013 12:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Most are just dualist. They are indeed easily shown inconsistent. But the problem is
not the absence of mind, it is the believe in a primary physical reality, which is not
sustained by any evidences.

?? What's the evidence arithmetic is primary? The only evidence for a theory is that
it works.

No, it does not work. It fails since a long time on the mind-body problem, or it
eliminates first person experiences and persons.

That seems to me just a failure of imagination; like those who said chemistry fails to
explain life because chemicals are alive. Yes, chemistry failed for a long time - but
then it succeeded.

It assumes also what I am trying to understand, the appearance of matter, and when I say
that there are no evidences, I mean it: there are evidences for a physical reality, but
*primitive* matter is like ether, phlogiston, or N rays: nobody has been able to provide
evidences. It is just a simplifying assumption, and it is not used in any book of
physics, even if it is assumed implicitly in some "fundamental physics". Don't confuse
physics and physicalism.

I agree that nobody needs to assume matter is primitive - in fact physicists are
continually looking for more fundamental stuff which is what led Tegmark to his "all
mathematical objects" idea. But this seems to me just semantics - what do we call the
stuff that is fundamental "matter", "computation", "mathematical objects"...who cares!
All we care about is whether we can fit them into a coherent theory that explains the world.

The fact that Arithmetic or Turing-equivalent might be primary are overwhelming. First
we don't have arithmetic, computer (the math object) or anything like that without
assuming it. Second it is assumed in all pieces of any "exact science or human science",
then we experience it everyday. We teach it without problem in all schools, etc. It is
the only piece of knowledge on which all humans already agree (except a minority of
philosophers, but they are easily shown inconsistent).

You seem to criticize primary physical reality because it doesn't include a more
fundamental theory showing that it's primary - but that would a contradiction.

Indeed. I criticize primary physical reality for the same reason that atheists are right
when criticizing the use of God as explanation. Primitive matter explains nothing. And
then it prevents the search for rational explanations.

Whatever the most fundamental model is cannot have a justification showing it is
fundamental.

That's not correct. Arithmetic or Turing-equivalent theories can explain entirely why we
cannot get the axioms from less. You can prove in arithmetic that without the
arithmetical axioms you don't get them.

But that doesn't prove that they are true, nor does it prove than no other axioms might be
true. So how does that prove it's fundamental? Your argument seems circular.

You can prove in arithmetic that Pressburger arithmetic (addition, but no
multiplication) is decidable and complete (in the Gödel 1930 sense). So you can prove in
arithmetic that the fundamental theory is arithmetic or a consistent extension of
arithmetic. Then with comp you can prove that we don't need to extend it for the
ontology, and that from inside, you need and get *all* consistent exttension, leading to
a many-world, or many-dreams, account of what we live.

But you don't get all the stuff that physics has explained with the Standard Model and
General Relativity. You just *assume* it must be in there somewhere - which doesn't count
as "explanation" in my mind.

Brent

Primitive matter is just a notion extrapolated from quite local perceptions. It is like
"the earth is flat". It works for architects, but not for sailors and space explorers.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3345 / Virus Database: 3199/6417 - Release Date: 06/16/13

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options,

Re: The missing perceiver in materialism and artificial intelligence and how to implement it

2013-06-17 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 16 Jun 2013, at 19:20, meekerdb wrote:


On 6/16/2013 12:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Most are just dualist. They are indeed easily shown inconsistent.  
But the problem is not the absence of mind, it is the believe in a  
primary physical reality, which is not sustained by any evidences.


?? What's the evidence arithmetic is primary?  The only evidence for  
a theory is that it works.


No, it does not work. It fails since a long time on the mind-body  
problem, or it eliminates first person experiences and persons. It  
assumes also what I am trying to understand, the appearance of matter,  
and when I say that there are no evidences, I mean it: there are  
evidences for a physical reality, but *primitive* matter is like  
ether, phlogiston, or N rays: nobody has been able to provide  
evidences. It is just a simplifying assumption, and it is not used in  
any book of physics, even if it is assumed implicitly in some  
"fundamental physics". Don't confuse physics and physicalism.


The fact that Arithmetic or Turing-equivalent might be primary are  
overwhelming. First we don't have arithmetic, computer (the math  
object) or anything like that without assuming it. Second it is  
assumed in all pieces of any "exact science or human science", then we  
experience it everyday. We teach it without problem in all schools,  
etc. It is the only piece of knowledge on which all humans already  
agree (except a minority of philosophers, but they are easily shown  
inconsistent).




You seem to criticize primary physical reality because it doesn't  
include a more fundamental theory showing that it's primary - but  
that would a contradiction.


Indeed. I criticize primary physical reality for the same reason that  
atheists are right when criticizing the use of God as explanation.  
Primitive matter explains nothing. And then it prevents the search for  
rational explanations.




Whatever the most fundamental model is cannot have a justification  
showing it is fundamental.


That's not correct. Arithmetic or Turing-equivalent theories can  
explain entirely why we cannot get the axioms from less. You can prove  
in arithmetic that without the arithmetical axioms you don't get them.  
You can prove in arithmetic that Pressburger arithmetic (addition, but  
no multiplication) is decidable and complete (in the Gödel 1930  
sense). So you can prove in arithmetic that the fundamental theory is  
arithmetic or a consistent extension of arithmetic. Then with comp you  
can prove that we don't need to extend it for the ontology, and that  
from inside, you need and get *all* consistent exttension, leading to  
a many-world, or many-dreams, account of what we live.


Primitive matter is just a notion extrapolated from quite local  
perceptions. It is like "the earth is flat". It works for architects,  
but not for sailors and space explorers.


Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The missing perceiver in materialism and artificial intelligence and how to implement it

2013-06-16 Thread meekerdb


On 6/16/2013 12:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Most are just dualist. They are indeed easily shown inconsistent. But the problem is not 
the absence of mind, it is the believe in a primary physical reality, which is not 
sustained by any evidences.


?? What's the evidence arithmetic is primary?  The only evidence for a theory is that it 
works.  You seem to criticize primary physical reality because it doesn't include a more 
fundamental theory showing that it's primary - but that would a contradiction.  Whatever 
the most fundamental model is cannot have a justification showing it is fundamental.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The missing perceiver in materialism and artificial intelligence and how to implement it

2013-06-16 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 16 Jun 2013, at 07:20, Roger Clough wrote:

The missing perceiver in materialism and artificial intelligence and
how to implement it

Unless you have a perceive (a subject) with a point of view, a
broadband living mind, you have nothing.

Some machines have already discovered their own many different points
of view.

The perceiver has the ability to see the world

Which world?

from his own pinpoint or narrow-band point of view
and scan it through all angles in nroadband.

Here;s what saomputer science has:

no consciousness, just a blind deaf and dumb description of an
object = just data = an objective or public world. (what computers
are confined to live in).

Most are just dualist. They are indeed easily shown inconsistent. But
the problem is not the absence of mind, it is the believe in a primary
physical reality, which is not sustained by any evidences.

Here's what Leibniz gives us:

Personal consciousness, that being (subject + object) = a personal
experience = a personal or subjective worldc

Leibniz seems to be the only one who gives a fairly understandable
account. Here's one of my versions of his view:

http://www.academia.edu/3661917/The_secret_of_perception._How_our_individual_minds_all_perceive_through_the_One_Mind

"The secret of perception. Particular minds and how they relate to
the overall or Cosmic MindThe problem of perception in materialistic
thinking is that it
forces us tothink that there is a homunculo usLeibniz has a more
complicated understanding of particular minds and how they relate
toCosmic Mind.In
Leibniz's metaphysics, there is only one mind (the Perceiver or
Cosmic Mind or God) thatperceives and acts, doing this through the
Surpreme (most dominant) monad.It perceives the whole universe with
perfect clarity.Only it can perceive and act, because its monads
(which includes our minds) have no windows.The monads (our minds)
perceive only indirectly, as the Supreme Monad is the only--what we
would call-- "conscious" mind. We only think and perceive
indirectly,as the Supreme Monad continually and instantly updates
its universe of monads. Thus there is no problem communing with God
(the Cosmic Mind)as we do so continually and necessarily, although
only aqccording to our own abilitiesand perspective. sThat we
ourselves, not God, appear to be the perceiver is thus only
apparent.Also,
because Cosmic Mind sees the entire universe as viewed by a
kaleidoscope of individual monads, the perceptions it returns to us
contains not only whatwe see (the universe from our
own individual perspectives) but what theperceptions of all of the
other monads. Thus each monad knows everythingin the universe, but
only from its own perspective, and monads
being monads,not perfectly clear but distorted.Thus, as Paul says,
“For now we see dimly, as in a mirror, but the n we shallsee
cleasrly, face to face.Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/16/2013

Leibniz is still far late compared to the antic Platonists, which are
the only one coherent with facts and theories (comp, QM, etc.)

Bruno

Also see my Leibniz site at
http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough
__
DreamMail - Enjoy good email software www.dreammail.org

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

The missing perceiver in materialism and artificial intelligence and how to implement it

2013-06-15 Thread Roger Clough

The missing perceiver in materialism and artificial intelligence and how to
implement it

Unless you have a perceive (a subject) with a point of view, a broadband living
mind, you have nothing.

The perceiver has the ability to see the world from his own pinpoint or
narrow-band point of view
and scan it through all angles in nroadband.

Here;s what saomputer science has:

no consciousness, just a blind deaf and dumb description of an object = just
data = an objective or public world. (what computers are confined to live in).

Here's what Leibniz gives us:

Personal consciousness, that being (subject + object) = a personal experience =
a personal or subjective worldc

Leibniz seems to be the only one who gives a fairly understandable account.
Here's one of my versions of his view:

http://www.academia.edu/3661917/The_secret_of_perception._How_our_individual_minds_all_perceive_through_the_One_Mind

"The secret of perception. Particular minds and how they relate to the overall
or Cosmic MindThe problem of perception in materialistic thinking is that it
forces us tothink that there is a homunculo usLeibniz has a more complicated
understanding of particular minds and how they relate toCosmic Mind.In
Leibniz's metaphysics, there is only one mind (the Perceiver or Cosmic Mind or
God) thatperceives and acts, doing this through the Surpreme (most dominant)
monad.It perceives the whole universe with
perfect clarity.Only it can perceive and act, because its monads (which
includes our minds) have no windows.The monads (our minds) perceive only
indirectly, as the Supreme Monad is the only--what we would call-- "conscious"
mind. We only think and perceive indirectly,as the Supreme Monad continually
and instantly updates its universe of monads. Thus there is no problem
communing with God (the Cosmic Mind)as we do so continually and necessarily,
although only aqccording to our own abilitiesand perspective. sThat we
ourselves, not God, appear to be the perceiver is thus only apparent.Also,
because Cosmic Mind sees the entire universe as viewed by a kaleidoscope of
individual monads, the perceptions it returns to us contains not only whatwe
see (the universe from our
own individual perspectives) but what theperceptions of all of the other
monads. Thus each monad knows everythingin the universe, but only from its own
perspective, and monads
being monads,not perfectly clear but distorted.Thus, as Paul says, �For now we
see dimly, as in a mirror, but the n we shallsee cleasrly, face to face.Dr.
Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/16/2013

Also see my Leibniz site at
http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough

DreamMail - New experience in email software www.dreammail.org

Re: The missing perceiver in materialism and artificial intelligence and how to implement it

Re: The missing perceiver in materialism and artificial intelligence and how to implement it

Re: The missing perceiver in materialism and artificial intelligence and how to implement it

Re: The missing perceiver in materialism and artificial intelligence and how to implement it

The missing perceiver in materialism and artificial intelligence and how to implement it

5 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information